Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I'm no good at modding but I think that this would be a pretty cool creature to add if anyone was so inclined.

[Kagus]

Would someone post a picture of that thing?  That's the only reason I would ever consider seeing that movie, and I'd rather save myself the trouble.

I often find myself drawn towards movies just so I can see whatever critters they've come up with...

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

The movie is pretty good anyway I think.  They really took advantage of the whole cam-corder thing to add atmosphere and the characters very rarely did anything unnaturally idiotic given the situation they were in.

I can't seem to find any real pictures of it on google.

[ February 25, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]

[Kagus]

Blech.  I've hated the "camcorder effect" ever since watching the "Blair Witch Project".

Every other time I've seen any sort of intentionally faulty camerawork, the movie hasn't been that great.  It's like the movie is so bad, they're trying to hide as much of it from you so you don't go into shock.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Well yeah, it's not for everyone, but I thought it was good.  I never bothered to watch Blair Witch though.  It didn't interest me.

The special effects are quite good and it has a neat thing it does where the video being recorded on has another film on it that's being recorded over, so whenever the camera gets turned off and messed with it plays that video.

The whole movie is portrayed as something like a military briefing and says that the tape was recovered from the site.  Which is kind of cool.  They never break from the camera's perspective.

Well I suppose some people think you can't have a movie without professional looking camera work.  But what's cool about this film is that the things they do with it.  It can really only be done with video.  A novelization just wouldn't capture the atmosphere.

[ February 25, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]

[Kagus]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't even notice the camera work, good or bad.  All attention should be focused on what is being presented.  The story, the characters, the general atmosphere of where everything is taking place.  It can be pulled off to the point where your mind no longer sees anything wrong with the fact that you're observing someone from a vantage point you don't actually happen to occupy, sort of like a dream.

A perfect detail is one that goes unnoticed.  Sounds strange,  I know, but it applies to a lot of things.

And I still can't help out unless I actually know something about the creature.  From what I've heard, it's essentially a big blob of wind that throws stuff around, but I'd still like to see it.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Well, I don't know what to say, it doesn't feel like camera work.  It feels like someone recorded a monster attack on New York.  I liked it because for the most part it felt really natural.

Here's a link to a picture of what people thought it would look like.  It's actually sort of like it.  The head and numerous other details are all wrong though.

http://dougbot.com/forum/cloverfieldPart2.jpg

[ February 25, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]

[Kagus]

Looks kinda aquatic.  Hmm, I may need to see this thing after all...

Thank you, Vegas casinos!  You provide all the community donations required to sustain a library within walking distance of our house, where we can pick up recent releases for free.  For a week at a time.

[Keilden]

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/Products_DetailView.htm?AC=B&BR=863&ID=21030&TP=HR

The Cloverfield official toy.

[Kagus]

Okay, it's an alien demon bat.  I'm not entirely sure what the resemblance is between that and the flippered creature.

[Keilden]

Well people say its like a monster salamander, haven't seen the movie myself.

quote:The public saw it for themselves on opening night. It vaguely resembles a giant salamander, with gray, scaly flesh and a long, slender fish tail. It has long, gangly forearms like a wingless bat, large hind legs, similar to a grasshopper's in shape, and several pairs of vestigial limbs.  

[ February 25, 2008: Message edited by: Keilden ]

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

The head looks closer to correct than the see beast.  The arms have the right bend to them, otherwise it looks totally wrong...  Wrong color too.

It was brownish.

[ February 25, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]

[Sean Mirrsen]

The film is actually rather interesting, with the funky camerawork and stuff (though I doubt a few moments where the camera operator behaves like a +professional cameraman+, like continuing to film the beast as it's about to eat him). Some script/design ideas were sorta "borrowed", but all in all, it's fairly uncommon.

I also marvel at the poor camcorder that managed to preserve the tape (undamaged!) after what it's been subjected to. I'm also not exactly sure what happened at the end of the film, but at least from the sound of it, the tape would have been destroyed unless the camera had some serious shielding.

Btw, the film has been dubbed "Monstro" in russian. I guess they'd have to feed the thing a wooden doll to get rid of it...  :p

[Keilden]

quote:Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>The head looks closer to correct than the see beast.  The arms have the right bend to them, otherwise it looks totally wrong...  Wrong color too.

It was brownish.

[ February 25, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]</STRONG>

That is the Official look of it

[Kagus]

Well, we all know how movie-based toys can turn out in relation to the character they represent.  Also, if they give away what the creature really looks like, fewer people will watch the film. At least that's what I felt with all the mystery-hype surrounding the creature codenamed "Cloverfield".